Talk:Dead Cells

Souls dispute
The assertion in the current article in the gameplay section is this:

"Permanent upgrades that affect future play-throughs can be obtained in a manner similar to the Souls series."

My contention is firstly that this is not actually contained in the referenced citation; what is contained is two separate sentences:

"But every time you die, you get stronger, along with a chance to re-roll the dice of fate to see what vicious weaponry you can gather this time." and "It styles itself after Dark Souls but, really, you should leave those assumptions at the gate."

Saying either that the game styles itself after the Souls series or that you can obtain permanent upgrades that effect future play-throughs would be correct however placing them both in the same sentence connects them in a manner which is both not true and not implied in the original article. The permanent upgrades you obtain are not similar to the souls series, rather what is similar to the souls series is the 'style' which I'm reading to mean visual aesthetic but which regardless is definitely not in reference to the roguelike nature. Secondly, even if this were a sentence or idea expressed in the article, it wouldn't be a good source to cite because the concept of repeatedly starting over from the beginning of the game and upgrading equipment in an iterative process is not present in the Souls series of games and so the comparison is inherently nonsensical. I fixed this the first time by just removing the second half of the sentence although I suppose it could also be done by just separating this into two sentences as in the original article:

"Permanent upgrades that affect future play-throughs can be obtained. The game styles itself in a manner similar to the Souls series" or some more pleasing version of this.

Thoughts?

Delirious-Monk (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I could argue that the Souls-as-currency aspect is what the Dark Souls nod was to, but when I look at more sources, I agree that you are right, that the Souls-reference is specifically more to combat, difficult enemies, and frequent deaths. The Souls-as-currency mechanic is related but not part of the way sources describe it. I have made that change. --M ASEM (t) 18:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you! (not sure how to properly indent here, I'm hoping it's double colon like that) Delirious-Monk (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"Roguelike" / "Metroidvania" dispute
This game isn't a Roguelike, a word with a rigid technical meaning, so I changed it to 'roguelite' which is the more accepted term of art for games with roguelike elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.25.250 (talk • contribs)
 * The industry does not have a hard definition of what a roguelike is (it's only purist that demand it be something specific). We go with "roguelike" as that's also how most sources and the developers describe it. --M asem (t) 13:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually it is described as a "rogue-lite" on the official website, so this article should be updated accordingly. Saying "that's how the developers describe it" is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.218.65.147 (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We go by what reliable sources call it, not what their website or the catalog pages say. They have said in interviews with reliable sources it is a "roguevania" and explain that as a "roguelike Metroidvania", and that's how most other sources describe it as well. --M asem (t) 18:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the official website for the game wouldn't be considered a "reliable source." Regardless, you just said "it is a 'roguevania'" which is entirely my point. Roguevania is NOT the same thing as a Metroidvania, so this article should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.218.65.147 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, they say in interviews "roguevania" and proceed to then say thats a "roguelike Metroidvania". That's why we use those terms. --M asem (t) 19:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Masem. Look, you didn't accept it when I provided 5 different news sources for modifying the definitions on the Metroidvania page. You're sounding very arbitrary in your lack of consistency. For the same reason, how is PCGamesN valid for this "roguevania" definition that's barely used. And why are you even referring to Steam for genres? Anyone can tag a game, and the company itself can refer to a game as whatever it wants. Doesn't mean the general community will accept it as such. Dead cells is linear, barely has ability-gating, doesn't have an interconnected world, and has no backtracking. It's entirely a rogue platformer. It has [none of] the hallmark MV elements. --HSukePup (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just realized I completely left out some words in the previous comment and ended up saying the exact opposite of what I meant. I've re-added them inline in brackets. I still feel like we're doing gamers a disservice by mis-categorizing Dead Cells as a roguelike and Metroidvania. --HSukePup (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Storefront pages and catalog pages are not reliable sources, in part that they may not be under control of the developer. We look to what we know developers are saying in reliable sources and what reliable sources themselves say. So we're not touching the Steam definition. Numerous source have called it a roguelike ("dead cells" + roguelike on google news get 4400 hits), and Metroidvania (3900 for that). I understand the issue that there's almost no backtracking (short of the teleporter system) but the trapping of powerups and the like associated with Metroidvanias are there. I did keep it to roguelike action platformer ... with Metroidvania-inspired elements, which is fully fair given all sources. --M asem (t) 23:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And I do want to stress, the key is reliable sources what I pointed out on the Metroidvania talk page was that those were not reliable. (particular random reddit posts). --M asem (t) 23:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For clarification, the citations were all various news sources. The reddit links were just for extra context from a previous discussion. --HSukePup (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Filip Miucin
Nothing about the Filip Miucin controversy? MRNasher (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * While the review was about this game, it has little to do about this game, and more about IGN and that editor. As such, it is covered at IGN appropriately, just not here. --M asem (t) 15:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)